ALKA NAVIN PODDAR, MUMBAI v. ACIT CC 17 & 28, MUMBAI

ITA 1511/MUM/2009 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 151119914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAGPP7504C
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1511/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant ALKA NAVIN PODDAR, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT CC 17 & 28, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 22-10-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 05-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1511 TO 1517/MUM./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 200001 TO 200607 ) DATE OF HEARING: 25.8.2010 SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR 252 WALKESHWAR ROAD KRISHNA BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 006 PAN AAGPP7504C .. APPELLANT VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 17 & 28 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI P. PEERYA O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF EVEN DATE 23 RD DECEMBER 2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)IV MU MBAI FOR THE YEARS UNDER ASSESSMENT FROM 200001 TO 200607. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE BEING SAME IN ALL THESE APPEALS THEREFORE AS A MA TTER OF CONVENIENCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ON 7 TH FEBRUARY 2006 A SEARCH AND SEIZER OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL PREMISE SITUATED AT 252 KRISHNA BHAVAN SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR A.Y 200001 TO 200607 2 WALKESHWAR ROAD MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HAD BEEN INITIATED. ASSESSEES INCOME COMPR ISED OF BUSINESS INCOME I.E. COMMISSION CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AN D INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES I.E. INTEREST AND DIVIDEND RECEIVED. THE A SSESSEE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED A FTER MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT AS UND ER:- A.Y RETURNED INCOME ASSESSED INCOME 200102 ` 1 95 080 ` 3 15 640 200001 ` 1 63 756 ` 4 55 980 200203 ` 2 42 080 ` 3 42 949 200304 ` 2 19 090 ` 4 67 570 200405 ` 2 30 069 ` 3 35 640 200506 ` 4 95 826 ` 5 91 350 200607 ` 8 29 830 ` 19 72 728 3. THE ADDITION FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 01 TO 2005 06 WERE MADE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 37(1) IN RESPECT OF ITEMS LIKE SALARY COMMISSION TRAVELING AND CONVEYANCE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 607 ALSO THE DISALLOWANCES WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 37 ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES @ 20% AND @ 10% ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING AND CONVEYA NCE EXPENSES APART FROM MAKING CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 6 9 BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF ` 4 00 000 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH E ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)S O RDER IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 5. THE ISSUE ARISING OUT OF GROUND NO.1 FROM ASSESSME NT YEARS 200001 TO 200506 AND GROUND NO.3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 IS COMMON IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER ASSESSMENT EXCEPT VARIATION IN FIG URES. IT RELATES TO DISALLOWANCES CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR A.Y 200001 TO 200607 3 6. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE BE RESTRICTED IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS PER THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607 NOTED ABOVE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND REL IED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES PR EVAILING IN ALL THE YEARS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% IN RESPECT OF MOTOR CAR EX PENSES AND 10% OUT OF TRAVELING AND CONVEYANCE. THEREFORE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE AS DONE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607 . THUS GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 200001 TO 200506 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND GROUND NO.3 RAISED IN A.Y. 2006 07 STANDS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.2 IS COMMON IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 200001 200102 AND 200304 EXCEPT VARIATION IN FIGURES. LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WISH TO PRESS THIS GROUND BEFORE US. LEARNED DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND DID NOT DISPUTE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISE D IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 200001 200102 AND 200304 IS DISMISSED. 9. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607 R ELATING TO UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF ` 7 17 133 BEING INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMI SE OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING MUTUAL FUNDS WERE FOUND:- S.N NAME OF THE FUND APPEAL NO. AMOUNT IN ` 1. SBI MUTUAL FUND BLUE CHIP B2318970 1 00 000 2. TATA INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 550382/85 1 00 000 3. DSP MARRILL LYNCH 288819/44 1 17 133 4. HDFC MUTUAL FUND 2405056/80 1 00 000 5. TATA CONTRA FUND 3023017114 1 00 000 6. STANDARD CHARTERED EQUITY FUND 178643 1 00 000 7. SAHARA MUTUAL FUND 53261 1 00 000 SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR A.Y 200001 TO 200607 4 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURN ISH DETAILS REGARDING SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED MUTUAL FUND. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 27 TH DECEMBER 2007 SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF BANK ENTRIES HIGHLIGHTING THE RESPECTIVE ENTRIES WHICH H AD BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS INVESTED IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED FAI LED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CONNECTION MADE IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND THE ENTRIES HIGHLIGHTED IN THE COPY OF BANK PASSBOO K. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ENTRIES HIGHLIGHTED WERE S IX OF ` 1 00 000 EACH THEREBY TAKING TOTAL OF ` 6 00 000. HOWEVER THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MUTUAL FUNDS FOUND AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISE STOOD AT ` 7 17 133 AND THEREFORE THERE WAS STILL DEFICIENCY OF ` 1 17 133. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET THE INVESTMENT MADE IN MUTUAL FU ND WAS ` 4 00 000 WHICH WAS ALSO LESSER THAN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE MADE ADDITION OF ` .7 17 133. 11. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION ON ACCOUNT OF LAKE OF SU PPORTING EVIDENCE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REF ERRED TO PAGE6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED DETAILS VIDE ITS LE TTER DATED 27 TH DECEMBER 2007. HE REFERRED TO PAGE24 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHE REIN THE LETTER DATED 27 TH DECEMBER 2007 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTAINED ON WHICH THERE IS AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE SAME BEING REC EIVED ON 28 TH DECEMBER 2007 AT 11:55 AM ALONG WITH FOLLOWING NOTING. IN THIS CONNECTION YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SUBSTANTIA TE YOUR CLAIM OF INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS WITH CORRESPONDING EVID ENCES GIVING CO- RELATION THEREOF BETWEEN THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS INVEST MENT IN THE COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK AND THE ACTUAL INVESTMENTS MADE I N THE MUTUAL FUNDS IN WRITING BY 5:30 PM TODAY. 13. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE NOTING THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE1 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AND POINTED OUT SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR A.Y 200001 TO 200607 5 THAT THE SAID ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 27 TH DECEMBER 2007 WHICH IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER WIT HOUT CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISSION. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 14. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE DOCUMENTS NOTED ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT BEFOR E CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DEN OVO ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS. THUS THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZER OPERATION CO NDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE CASH TOTALING ` 4 45 700 WAS FOUND. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THIS C ASH THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 7 TH FEBRUARY 2006 INTER-ALIA STATED THAT THE CASH FOUND AT HER RESIDENTIAL PREMISES BELONGED TO VARIOUS PERSONS WHO HAD GIVEN THE CASH TO HER FOR SAFE KEEPING. HOWEVER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS SHE HAD REQ UESTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS HER INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200506. 16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF ACQUISITION OF CASH FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZER THE SUM OF ` 4 00 000 HAD BEEN SEIZED BY THE DDIT (INVESTIGATION) MUMBAI. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607 THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCL OSED THE ABOVE CASH SEIZED THOUGH ADMITTED IN HER STATEMENT UNDER SECTI ON 132(4). THE ASSESSEE IN HER REPLY POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME H AD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TICKETING RECEIPTS ACCOUNT AND ALSO FILED ALL THE L EDGER ACCOUNT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE MONEYS WERE COLLECTED FROM VARIO US PASSENGERS SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR A.Y 200001 TO 200607 6 WHICH WAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK NEXT DAY. HOW EVER IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOID TROUBLE TO HER CLIENTS THE ASSE SSEE AGREED TO ADD THE SAME TO HER ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT ASSESSEES CONTENTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- 6.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THE SAME AS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCO UNT IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM THAT THE CASH FOUND OF ` 4 45 700 WAS OUT OF HER BUSINESS INCOME EITHER BEFORE THE DDIT (INV.) OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (II) FURTHER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT PRINT OUT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY MENTION THAT ON 25.2.2006 BY ADVANCE-TAX ` 4 00 000 AND NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT FOUND OF ` 4 45 700. (III) ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SUPPORTING DOC UMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM THAT THE CASH FOUND OF ` 4 45 700 WAS OUT OF HER TICKETING AND TRAVEL RECEIPTS EITHER BEFORE THE DDI T (INV.) OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (IV) ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME WITHOUT ANY CLAIM OF EXPENSES THEREFROM IS A LSO NOT CORRECT AS THE SAME HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TICKETING A ND TRAVEL RECEIPTS SHOWN OF ` 22 92 149 AND CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T AND DEBITED VARIOUS EXPENSES WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTABLE FOR THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS. 17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF ` 4 00 000 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 18. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION INTER-ALIA OBSERVING T HAT WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO BACK OUT FROM HER CONFIRMATION AND AT THE SAME TIME DID NOT GIVE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER AS T O WHOM THIS AMOUNT BELONGED. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 19. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US REFERR ED TO PAGE-32 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TICK ETING AND TRAVEL AGENT RECEIPTS IS CONTAINED AND POINTED OUT THAT ON 25 TH FEBRUARY 2006 A SUM OF ` 4 00 000 IS INCLUDED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT AS ADVANC E TAX. HE FURTHER SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR A.Y 200001 TO 200607 7 REFERRED TO PAGE33 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN P&L ACCOUNT IS CONTAINED AND POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AGGREGATING TO ` 22 92 149 HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION UNDER THIS HEAD. THEREFORE HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE A SEPARATE ADDITION OF ` 4 00 000. 20. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRIMARILY RETRACTED HER STATE MENT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. HE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND P OINTED OUT THAT IN PARA 7.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NEITHER SUPPORTED BY PROPER VOUCHERS NOR WERE SELF VOUCHED. FURTHER NO THIRD PARTY CONFIRMA TION WAS FILED. PERSONAL EXPENSES WERE ALSO NOT RULED OUT. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED A SUM OF ` 4 00 000 IN ITS TICKETING AND TRAVEL RECEIPTS ACCO UNT AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS ADVANCE TAX. IN THE COURSE OF STATEMENT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE AM OUNT DOES NOT BELONG TO HER BUT IT BELONG TO VARIOUS PERSONS WHO HAD GIVEN IT TO HER FOR SAFE KEEPING BUT FOR WANT OF NECESSARY DETAILS SHE HAD AGREED F OR THE SAME BEING INCLUDED AS HER INCOME. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARNING COMMISSION INCOME FROM BOOKING OF TICKETING ETC. T HEREFORE WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME SHE HAD INCLUDED THE IMPUGNED AMO UNT IN THE SAID LEDGER ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE UN DER SECTION 37(1) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THAT THE LED GER ACCOUNT OF TICKETING INCLUDES THIS AMOUNT. THEREFORE IF THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRESPONDINGLY CLAIMED BOGUS EXPENSES AGAINST THIS AMOUNT THEN HE COULD HAVE DISALLOWED THOSE ITEMS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WHILE MAKING OTHER DISALLOWANCES. BUT NO SUC H DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO GO BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED ` 4 00 000 WHICH SHE HAD SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THEREFORE FURTHER ADDITION OF ` 4 00 000 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS UNWARRANTED AND THEREFORE BY DELETING THIS ADDITI ON WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPE AL. SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR A.Y 200001 TO 200607 8 22. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE YEARS UND ER ASSESSMENT FROM 200001 TO 200506 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.10.2010. SD/- VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- S.V. MEHROTRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 22 ND OCTOBER 2010 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A) MUMBAI CONCERNED (4) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED (5) THE DR A BENCH ITAT MUMBAI TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY SMT. ALKA NAVIN PODDAR A.Y 200001 TO 200607 9 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.8.2010 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.8.2010 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 30.8.2010 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 31.8.2010 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 31.8.2010 SR.PS/PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.10.2010 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.10.2010 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER